State v. Cruz
2016 UT App 234
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Abelardo Cruz lived with the victim (a six-year-old girl) and her mother. On Nov. 9, 2013 the mother entered a bedroom and observed Cruz with his pants unzipped and the child on the bed; the child later told the mother Cruz "put his tito in my mouth."
- The child gave two videotaped police interviews at Children’s Justice Centers (one bilingual, one mainly Spanish) describing oral sodomy and quoting Cruz’s alleged directions (e.g., "don’t bite it," "suck it like a popsicle").
- The State admitted both CJC video recordings under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5; the jury viewed both at trial with translated portions, and the jury was later permitted to take the videotapes into the jury room.
- During trial the court made a record that the child made a nonverbal nod in response to a question; the court later gave a curative instruction directing jurors to rely only on what they observed on the video.
- After about 18 hours of deliberation, the court (at the joint request of defense and prosecution) issued a modified Allen/status inquiry; the jury returned 30 minutes later with mixed verdicts—convictions on two counts of sodomy on a child (merged with aggravated kidnapping) and acquittal or deadlock on others.
Issues
| Issue | Cruz's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CJC videos in deliberations | Videos are testimonial; sending them to jury room was unfair and undermined confrontation/cross-examination | Videos were admitted exhibits under rule 15.5 and rule 17(l); exhibits may go to jury | Court erred in allowing the videotaped CJC interviews into jury room (testimonial in nature) but error was harmless — convictions affirmed |
| Reliability finding under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5 | Court’s findings on reliability were truncated/clearly erroneous; factors (age, coaching, lack of detail) undermine trustworthiness | Defense invited the ruling by stipulating and expressly declining to object; trial findings supported reliability | Defense invited the error; in any event the court’s detailed findings were adequate to support admission |
| Court’s on-the-record statement about child’s head nod | Court’s comment that child nodded was prejudicial and curative instruction insufficient | Defense invited the record; curative instruction remedied any impact | Any error was harmless; curative instruction and mixed verdicts support no prejudice |
| Modified Allen/status inquiry timing and language | Giving the instruction before deadlock and asking for a response "in a relatively short period" was coercive and premature | Trial court properly sought a status report after long deliberations; wording was non-coercive; defense joined in requesting instruction | No plain error or ineffective assistance shown; timing and request for a short-status response were proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sodomy convictions | Evidence was circumstantial, child may have parroted or observed adult sex; medical exam was inconclusive; potential coaching | Child’s detailed interviews plus mother’s corroborating observations provided sufficient proof | Evidence sufficient when viewed favorably to verdict; convictions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (doctrine of invited error and its limits)
- State v. McNeil, 365 P.3d 699 (Utah 2016) (clarifies when invited-error doctrine applies)
- State v. Nguyen, 293 P.3d 236 (Utah 2012) (interpretation and application of rule 15.5 recorded-child statements)
- State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995) (transcripts/testimonial exhibits should not be given to jury during deliberations)
- State v. Solomon, 87 P.2d 807 (Utah 1939) (historical rationale for excluding depositions/written testimony from jury room)
- State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353 (Utah 1986) (opportunity to cross-examine is constitutionally sufficient even if defense opts not to probe)
- State v. Taylor, 116 P.3d 360 (Utah 2005) (example of sufficiency of child testimony supporting sodomy conviction)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles regarding prior testimonial statements)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (permitting court to give verdict-urging instructions to urge juror deliberation)